|
Post by renospalding on Jan 31, 2019 13:03:20 GMT -5
Bring Back how about this:
1. Let’s not fall to other teams standard 2. Let’s set the bar a bit higher in fact much higher 3. Lets be an example to be proud of not a bunch of loose canons 4. You expect our team to perform better on the court than all these other teams so how about WE (well SOME OF THE POSTERS) perform better on this forum! 5. If we expect our team to be better than mediocre maybe we should be better than terrible!
I was always taught to lead by example!
After all, if we have expectations for these players busting their tails year round on the court while maintaining high academic standards and volunteering their time at soup kitchens, playgrounds, shelters, and with senior citizens during their so called free time then I think we owe them a little bit more respect! As well as the coaches!!!!
I think I made my point and I refuse to stoop to your very low standards of being a grown mature adult. I’ve already said more than I wanted in defending my position and the position of a few other positive posters on here. However things haven’t changed at all since I started following this forum so I am pretty sure this will only fuel your nasty demeanor as opposed to tame it.
To any and all non alum, fans, parents, players, recruits, coaches who may see this - I honestly hope it’s none because it is embarrassing - Many of us are better than this forum will lead you to believe.
GO CROSS!
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 31, 2019 13:18:03 GMT -5
Excellent points by reno.
We need to have more balance in our posts. Not wearing purple-hued glasses as if nothing ever goes wrong no mater the results and not "can the coach-bench the players" regardless of results.
There is little doubt that some posters have a bias and that may be true of all of us to a more or less degree.
This board should be an open forum for discussion and that includes criticism of the coaches and the overall performance of the players and, yes, even the administration. From my perspective, I know I have made comments about a player "having had a bad game" or "missing open shots." Those kinds of posts are not personal in nature and, truth be told, I'd bet the players would agree as they are pretty factual in nature. As some posters know, after a game in the Hart Center a couple of years ago, I was mumbling to my wife that "the guys played horribly tonight." Carmody was coming out of the Bud Ryan room (I hadn't seen him) and he said "you got that right!" I dropped him an email later and apologized and he wrote back that I was right and no need to apologize. I've given kudos for the players' efforts and never give up mentality and salute them for that.
I am personally neutral on Carmody but the "usual suspects" whose motivations are usually pretty clear have been pretty factual when it comes to stats. And, despite what passes for truth nowadays, you can't make up your own facts.
Carmody has not taken us from the Kearney/Brown wilderness to the promised land. That's not a fact, it's a metaphor. Reasons for failing to do that (injuries, bad timing on recruiting, etc.) are legitimate in the short term. Much less so over the course of years because every team encounters the same types of problems.
Nobody who is a competitor, and that includes players and coaches, wants to lose. That's pretty much a given. But, if you are going to be a well paid head coach, you either have or develop a thick skin or you had better find a different occupation.
|
|
|
Post by trimster on Jan 31, 2019 13:50:14 GMT -5
Boy, is that last statement so true. I think many of us on the board should take a minute to read Teddy Roosevelt's "The Man in the Arena." I find it to be so true and moving.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 31, 2019 13:59:29 GMT -5
THE MAN IN THE ARENA Excerpt from the speech "Citizenship In A Republic" delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910 It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 31, 2019 13:59:56 GMT -5
tri, as those on the old board know, that used to be my motto at the bottom of my posts and many years ago, my family had the Man in the Arena quote calligraphied and framed for me and hung in my office. It also happens to be a running theme in the 1970 Purple Patcher. One of the great quotations of all time IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jan 31, 2019 14:19:50 GMT -5
Good discussion. CBC is not John Wooden, but I am not calling for him to be fired. He is a career professional who has a small group of hardworking kids with gaps in talent, size, speed, depth, etc. He is trying to patch together a system that allows them to be as competitive as possible and the team sports a 12-10 winning record. Today's T&G article had candid comments from both the coach and players about the team's faults - not all that different from the gist of many comments on this board - just that Carmody and the players have more credibility than us anonymous posters hunched over a keyboard in our Mother's basement.
My bias is to support Coach Carmody through the end of his contract and use the hundreds of thousands saved from not paying two coaches at the same time as a resource to be as competitive as possible when we attempt to find the next young Doggie Julian. If CBC turns things around and wants to stay, go year to year as would be age appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 31, 2019 14:22:36 GMT -5
Reno thank you for your post
I understand and agree with you for the most part-- this is a forum for people to share information and discuss with classmates, friends and acquaintances the athletic programs and other topics of interest to the Holy Cross community. I read and re-read the post and will raise my hand and say guilty as charged. Players should be off limits and I crossed the line by expressing concern publicly about one player and the minutes he receives. If I offended the young man, his family, friends and supporters I apologize.
However, discussing strategy, systems and decisions should be part of the forum, as long as we don't take it to personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jan 31, 2019 14:30:04 GMT -5
Love Teddy Roosevelt. But I love these quotes too:
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ― Theodore Roosevelt
Yes, I would agree some posters have a "bent" against certain coaches or players in some situations. No, I wouldn't argue that it is inappropriate, personally slanderous, and worthy of censorship. Anything read here should be taken with a grain of salt, considering that the folks paying attention here are probably less than fifty of an entire planet of alums and potential fans that couldn't or wouldn't navigate to this web page with a bookmark in their browser.
It's a board about the sports teams, and to a lesser extent, the wider school. Not formally sanctioned by the school, not endorsed by it, and not funded by it. If you read these pages, you read opinions those of folks-- alums and otherwise-- who have an unusual sense of connection to the school and athletics programs, for a wide variety of reasons. It should be expected that they feel passionately about the success of these teams. It should be expected that they speak passionately and opine about these teams. It should not be expected that "support" is the veil thrown over blind "rah rah rah"-ing of the teams no matter what.
We do ourselves and the school (if they're paying as much attention as you claim, Mr. Spalding) a great disservice if we accept anything less than the best... the magis... the "greater." I was taught that much. I was also taught to be skeptical, to not accept things at face value, to investigate and dissect and be critical. The vast majority of posts are in a similar vein, and are not as harmful, in my estimation, as you claim.
You can be a floundering basketball coach and a fantastic, top-flight person and family man. One has nothing to do with the other, and none of us that are critical are concerned with the latter.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jan 31, 2019 14:34:38 GMT -5
BU only played one guy who was a true threat on the offensive boards last night – Max Mahoney. The HC gameplan should have been pretty simple – get AT LEAST one body on him after every missed shot.
Max Mahoney finished the night with SEVEN offensive rebounds – on a total of 25 missed shots by BU, for an OR% of 28% against the full team number.
To give that stat some context, the 190th ranked FULL TEAM in OR% this year has an OR% of 28%. The top ranked individual player in OR% is at 17.7%.
And making matters even worse, he only played 26 minutes last night, so his actual OR% of missed shots while he was on the floor would be even higher.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 31, 2019 14:40:59 GMT -5
Great points--nice analysis
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jan 31, 2019 14:43:35 GMT -5
I'd add this one to the quotes: "Fatigue Makes Cowards of Us All" --Vince Lombardi
Not enough bodies to wage war against the other teams appropriately. Other team members injured or not ready to contribute significantly.
The blame lies with the person that brought in/didn't bring in said bodies. Or the school if one thinks that the coach has not been blocked from bringing in people he should have been able to bring in.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 31, 2019 14:57:19 GMT -5
From the Telegram since someone mentioned it
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jan 31, 2019 15:04:46 GMT -5
BU only played one guy who was a true threat on the offensive boards last night – Max Mahoney. The HC gameplan should have been pretty simple – get AT LEAST one body on him after every missed shot. Max Mahoney finished the night with SEVEN offensive rebounds – on a total of 25 missed shots by BU, for an OR% of 28% against the full team number. To give that stat some context, the 190th ranked FULL TEAM in OR% this year has an OR% of 28%. The top ranked individual player in OR% is at 17.7%. And making matters even worse, he only played 26 minutes last night, so his actual OR% of missed shots while he was on the floor would be even higher. Eight of Boston U's missed shots came with Mahoney on the bench. So he got 7 of a possible 18 offensive rebounds - which is 39%.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jan 31, 2019 15:12:19 GMT -5
BU only played one guy who was a true threat on the offensive boards last night – Max Mahoney. The HC gameplan should have been pretty simple – get AT LEAST one body on him after every missed shot. Max Mahoney finished the night with SEVEN offensive rebounds – on a total of 25 missed shots by BU, for an OR% of 28% against the full team number. To give that stat some context, the 190th ranked FULL TEAM in OR% this year has an OR% of 28%. The top ranked individual player in OR% is at 17.7%. And making matters even worse, he only played 26 minutes last night, so his actual OR% of missed shots while he was on the floor would be even higher. Eight of Boston U's missed shots came with Mahoney on the bench. So he got 7 of a possible 18 offensive rebounds - which is 39%. Thanks, bison. The 3rd ranked TEAM in the country is at 39.0%
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 31, 2019 15:16:08 GMT -5
For Holy Cross there is a puzzling discrepancy between (1) our offensive rebounding's correlation to winning (or offensive efficiency) and (2) our opponents' offensive rebounding's correlation to their winning (or our defensive efficiency). Take a look:
Holy Cross Offensive Rebounding
12-3= Holy Cross record when we have offensive rebounding percentage of 18.8% or higher. Only 3 teams in the country have a lower season-long o-rebounding % lower than this 0-7= Holy Cross record when we have offensive rebounding percentage of 16.7% or lower
I think I have also posted before that KenPom's calculations show Holy Cross with an unusually high correlation [+60] between O-Rebounding and offensive efficiency
Holy Cross Opponents offensive rebounding
Here we see a puzzling pattern.
11-6= Holy Cross record when opponents offensive rebounding percentage is 41.2% (astronomically high) or lower. No team in the country has a season-long defense this bad 1-4= Holy Cross record when opponents offensive rebounding is 41.5% or higher
KenPom's calculations here suggest a very low correlation [-4] between opponents offensive rebounding and Holy Cross defensive efficiency
I'm at a loss to explain this, but don't get me wrong--I hate seeing our opponents get extra chances
In like fashion, the correlation between Holy Cross turnover percentage and HC winning/offensive efficiency is much, much stronger than is the correlation on our opponents' side
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Jan 31, 2019 15:43:53 GMT -5
1. Team is very thin due to a variety of both injuries and poor recruiting (or poor decisions made by some recruits in some cases). 2. This board is tamer than 99.9% of college message boards. That is all....for now
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jan 31, 2019 15:45:54 GMT -5
For Holy Cross there is a puzzling discrepancy between (1) our offensive rebounding's correlation to winning (or offensive efficiency) and (2) our opponents' offensive rebounding's correlation to their winning (or our defensive efficiency). Take a look: Holy Cross Offensive Rebounding
12-3= Holy Cross record when we have offensive rebounding percentage of 18.8% or higher. Only 3 teams in the country have a lower season-long o-rebounding % lower than this 0-7= Holy Cross record when we have offensive rebounding percentage of 16.7% or lower I think I have also posted before that KenPom's calculations show Holy Cross with an unusually high correlation [+60] between O-Rebounding and offensive efficiency Holy Cross Opponents offensive rebounding
Here we see a puzzling pattern. 11-6= Holy Cross record when opponents offensive rebounding percentage is 41.2% (astronomically high) or lower. No team in the country has a season-long defense this bad 1-4= Holy Cross record when opponents offensive rebounding is 41.5% or higher KenPom's calculations here suggest a very low correlation [-4] between opponents offensive rebounding and Holy Cross defensive efficiency
I'm at a loss to explain this, but don't get me wrong--I hate seeing our opponents get extra chances In like fashion, the correlation between Holy Cross turnover percentage and HC winning/offensive efficiency is much, much stronger than is the correlation on our opponents' side Very interesting. I wonder if it has something to do with what you're using as your cutoff for opponents? If you instead set the cutoff at the midpoint (34.45%), the numbers would look like this: 5-6 = HC's record when opponent OR% >=34.5% 7-4 = HC's record when opponent OR% < 34.4% Using HC's current winning percentage of 54.5% as the anchor, we win 45.5% of our games when our defensive rebounding is worse than the midpoint versus 63.8% of our games when our defensive rebounding is better than the midpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 31, 2019 15:50:20 GMT -5
For a program that has been stuck somewhere in between bad and mediocre for going on a decade now, this is probably one of the tamest and most civil sports message boards out there.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 31, 2019 16:44:22 GMT -5
For Holy Cross there is a puzzling discrepancy between (1) our offensive rebounding's correlation to winning (or offensive efficiency) and (2) our opponents' offensive rebounding's correlation to their winning (or our defensive efficiency). Take a look: Holy Cross Offensive Rebounding
12-3= Holy Cross record when we have offensive rebounding percentage of 18.8% or higher. Only 3 teams in the country have a lower season-long o-rebounding % lower than this 0-7= Holy Cross record when we have offensive rebounding percentage of 16.7% or lower I think I have also posted before that KenPom's calculations show Holy Cross with an unusually high correlation [+60] between O-Rebounding and offensive efficiency Holy Cross Opponents offensive rebounding
Here we see a puzzling pattern. 11-6= Holy Cross record when opponents offensive rebounding percentage is 41.2% (astronomically high) or lower. No team in the country has a season-long defense this bad 1-4= Holy Cross record when opponents offensive rebounding is 41.5% or higher KenPom's calculations here suggest a very low correlation [-4] between opponents offensive rebounding and Holy Cross defensive efficiency
I'm at a loss to explain this, but don't get me wrong--I hate seeing our opponents get extra chances In like fashion, the correlation between Holy Cross turnover percentage and HC winning/offensive efficiency is much, much stronger than is the correlation on our opponents' side Very interesting. I wonder if it has something to do with what you're using as your cutoff for opponents? If you instead set the cutoff at the midpoint (34.45%), the numbers would look like this: 5-6 = HC's record when opponent OR% >=34.5% 7-4 = HC's record when opponent OR% < 34.4% Using HC's current winning percentage of 54.5% as the anchor, we win 45.5% of our games when our defensive rebounding is worse than the midpoint versus 63.8% of our games when our defensive rebounding is better than the midpoint. After sorting for the category (e.g. OR%, TO%, 3PT %, Defensive 2 PT%, etc) I eyeball the "Game Plan" data on KenPom's site and hope to find a lot of green lines (wins) above or below some demarcation line. Sometimes it's obvious, as in the offensive rebounding above, and other times not so obvious. Using the midpoint as you did is another way of doing it and it probably works best with teams around .500 W-L like HC.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jan 31, 2019 19:41:28 GMT -5
I listened to Dick Lutsk's call of the game for parts of the first half and the noise behind him from the BU club sports Spirit night guys and gals was off the charts. Dick kept saying he had never heard any fans that loud and he's been calling games for half a century or so.
Then when I had time to watch the game on the PLN during the second half, I saw the club sports guys in just their jockey shorts going nuts on the coldest night of the year. Hat's off to BU for that show of school spirit. We used to have our own New England Jesuit Turnpike Trophy. It was called the O'Melia Award, but times change and we move on. I hope whoever is in charge of student school spirit at Holy Cross was taking notes last night. Attending a game in skivvies is very, very optional, however, imo.
At halftime, Dick interviewed Coach Kavanaugh of the HC Track and Field program. There are well over 100 student atheletes participating in that one sport. BU has dropped some varsity sports (football, baseball) but obviously has a thriving club sports program. Each approach has validity.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jan 31, 2019 19:45:19 GMT -5
I listened to Dick Lutsk's call of the game for parts of the first half and the noise behind him from the BU club sports Spirit night guys and gals was off the charts. Dick kept saying he had never heard any fans that loud and he's been calling games for half a century or so. Then when I had time to watch the game on the PLN during the second half, I saw the club sports guys in just their jockey shorts going nuts on the coldest night of the year. Hat's off to BU for that show of school spirit. We used to have our own New England Jesuit Turnpike Trophy. It was called the O'Melia Award, but times change and we move on. I hope whoever is in charge of student school spirit at Holy Cross was taking notes last night. Attending a game in skivvies is very, very optional, however, imo. It should be noted, however, that Boston U normally has almost no students at all in attendance. Over the course of a year, far fewer than Holy Cross. Boston U's average home attendance is 688 and surely exaggerated. That ranks 9th in the PL.
|
|
|
Post by res on Jan 31, 2019 19:50:51 GMT -5
Yes, you've got to credit them for a good promotion, much like AU's "Phil Bender" game. It worked pretty well for a few years but it didn't seem to have any impact on attendance at other games.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 31, 2019 20:21:39 GMT -5
Wouldn’t you guess that comparing attendance to enrollment, BU would likely be among the dozen lowest schools in D-1? I do understand that people other than students go to games, but school enrollment certainly increases the target audience
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jan 31, 2019 20:41:19 GMT -5
1. Team is very thin due to a variety of both injuries and poor recruiting (or poor decisions made by some recruits in some cases). 2. This board is tamer than 99.9% of college message boards. That is all....for now Check out my reply to your comment about Coach Infante in the football thread. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Jan 31, 2019 21:02:32 GMT -5
For all their "spirit"...last night's attendance: 966.
|
|